Tuesday, January 10, 2012

No Shariah Law in OK Courts? Appeals Court Sides with CAIR

Seventy percent of Oklahoma voters approved a referendum (State Question 755) to require their courts to uphold U.S. law without consideration of international law or Shariah law. It took CAIR only two days to sue on the grounds that Muslims' constitutional rights were being violated.

Today, a federal appeals court pat CAIR on the head and sent Oklahoma voters to the corner.

(CNN) – A federal appeals court has blocked an Oklahoma voter-approved measure barring state judges from considering Islamic and international law in their decisions.

The three-judge panel at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier injunction preventing State Question 755 from being certified until the free speech questions are resolved. The decision Tuesday allows a lawsuit brought by Islamic-American groups to move ahead to a bench trial.

“The proposed amendment discriminates among religions,” said the judges. “The Oklahoma amendment specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law.”

A federal judge last summer had issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.

The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and “forbids courts from considering or using” either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. The group’s local leader, Muneer Awad, has said the amendment passed in November 2010 under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam.
(H/t Weasel Zippers)

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the lawyer of a German Muslim who opened fire on a group of U.S. soldiers at the Frankfort airport, killing two of them and wounding two others, is being defended because he is "well meaning." It is worth noting that Shariah law has made inroads in

to the legal system of Germany, where, for example, Jordanian immigrants are married and divorced in accordance with Jordanian law, and polygamous marriages are recognized.

Arid Uka, 21, who was born in Kosovo but grew up in Frankfurt, “wanted to make his personal contribution to the holy war” but not knowing how to get to Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban, opted to act closer to home, the federal prosecutor told the court.

He should serve at least the usual maximum sentence in Germany of 15 years, argued prosecutor Jochen Weingarten, saying the case involving two charges of murder and three of attempted murder was a particularly severe one.

Defence lawyer Michaela Roth did not contest Uka’s guilt but argued extenuating circumstances, describing the difficult background of the “shy, quiet and well meaning” young man who had never previously been aggressive and was “without future prospects.”

The March 2 attack took place at Frankfurt airport, where Uka allegedly opened fire on a group of US soldiers on their way to fight in Afghanistan. Airmen Nicholas Jerome Alden, 25, and Zachary Ryan Cuddeback, 21, were killed. Two more soldiers were wounded. (H/t: @fuzislippers)

A little closer to home on Planet Earth, a judge found that a woman has no legal protection from frequent beatings and rapes by her husband in New Jersey as long as he thinks that beating and raping her is, uh, A-Okay according to Shariah law.

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” Santorum said last March [3/2011]. “We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.” He added correctly, and in sharp contrast to the prevailing view, that “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”

8 comments:

This is what an attorney I know told me. The OK law was written too broadly and never had a chance of being upheld in court. It has mainly to do with the international law part of it. International law does need to be taken into consideration in our court systems, especially when it comes to contract law. Many international businesses enter into contracts with companies from other countries and the laws of those other countries must be used as part of the courts determination in any lawsuits that arise. He also told me that religion is also used in courts all the time when it comes to disputes about wills. Many people use their particular religious beliefs as instructions in their wills, ie how they are buried and the dividing up of assets. Those religious practices are then needed to solve the dispute

In Oklahoma they only write laws. They've already selected telephone co. retirees to hide behind with their attempt to change the minds and opinions of the masses. Just start slashing tires and do things any typical serial killer would do and...presto! Instant converts!

@conservative girl -- The camel's snout is under the tent, and Oklahoma has at least sounded the alarm before the rest of the camel moves in like an Occupod, bringing the entire tent down around everyone's ears.

If international law stopped at defining contracts and Shariah law stopped at defining how Muslims want to apportion their wills, nobody would have said a word, never mind enact legislation. You don't see states telling judges not to honor bequests by Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, etc., etc.

You will, on the other hand, see the U.S. federal government obstinately refusing to honor the last wishes of Christians, as demonstrated by the VA administration in Texas refusing to allow Christian veterans to be buried or memorialized with prayers that include the words "God" or "Jesus."

Oklahoma seems to have noticed that none of these religious groups demand, for example, special banking regulations in which they aren't required to pay any loan interest but instead pay a "religious" tax to a Buddhist-only, Shinto-only, Hindu-only, or Christian-only "charity" determined solely by a self--selected panel of their religious leaders.

Muslims, on the other hand, are already being handed U.S. taxpayer dollars to disburse "religious tax" dollars (zakat) to dubious imam-selected "charities" because Shariah law demands it. That's handy, for Muslims and foreign Muslim "charities," that is.

Shariah has very specific "laws" governing every aspect of human activity, including what the rest of us define as secular activities. Expecting Oklahoma to write an air-tight law protecting non-Muslims from all the aspects of Shariah law based on the claim that everything that Muslims do is "religious" (and therefore good) is asking too much.

That's not even mentioning what the bandit nations of the UN want to impose on U.S. citizens and taxpayers via international "law."

@Odie -- My vote is for Americans--the ones who did the working for, paying for, and dying for this country.

@Liberty -- Shariah law is a great recruitment tool for Islam. Join Islam and get special economic and religious privileges that the rest of society doesn't enjoy. Of course, to do so, you have to give up your Creator-endowed liberties.

The main reason why I endorsed Rick Santorum is because of his knowledge and courage on the issue of jihad, sharia and islamization. Great post, QR, what you wrote above here in your comments section is terrific too, worthy of its own post or getting added to this one. I hope Oklahoma will draft legislation against the sharia (and other foreign laws) and try again, Pamela Geller has the template for the wording that the feds have not even tried to strike down where it was passed in other states. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/template-model-legislation-foreign-law-anti-sharia-ban.html

AMERICAN TROOPS ARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST BECAUSE THE "JEWS" WHO OWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE WANT A BILLION MORE INTEREST-PAYING CUSTOMERS, THE MUSLIMS. They're making up or engineering excuses to invade these countries so they can replace all the NON-INTEREST-CHARGING Islamic banks with Fed-like banking mafias THAT MAKE THE "JEWS" MONEY. Also, the "jews" are using their media to train Americans to hate SHARIA LAW, not because it gives secondary status to women ("jews" couldn't care less about anyone's status but their own) but because it prohibits the collecting of interest, the "jews" main purpose in living. The "jews" confuse being filthy rich with being smart. So smart that us mortals can't possibly see what they're up to. But you don't have to be smart to be born into a rich, psychotic family. STOP BELIEVING THE JUDEO-COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA!!! DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES: "When you get tired of fighting the truth."